269 
Fischer saw an original of Royle’ 8, there is no particular reason 
for supposing that Bunge is correct and Fischer not. 
accepts Thomson’s specimens as being correctly named A. cicert- 
folius, Royle, and Fischer accepts Jacquemont’s. It is not 
improbable that Royle named more than one plant A. cicerifolius, 
d as Fischer was the first to take up Royle’s herbarium name 
Bunge’s name cannot be retained. The type of A. cicerifolius, 
Royle ex Bunge, is Thomson’s plant from West Tibet, 10,000- 
14,000 feet. There are 3 sheets of this in Herb. Kew. The first 
was collected on 21st August 1847 at or near Sugnum m in Upper 
Kunawar. The sheet is mixed, a, b, and c, are A. cicertfolius, 
Royle ex Bunge = A. oplites, Benth. mss., d and e are small 
scraps which are probably A. polyacanthus, Royle and A, Jacque- 
montit, Bunge. The second sheet was collected at Le in Ladakh 
in July 1848 and shows two specimens of A. oplites, Benth. The 
third sheet is mixed and it is not possible to say for certain to 
which specimens the various labels belong. Specimens a, b and 
ce, are A. cicerifolius, Royle ex Fischer, d, is A. oplites, Benth., 
and e, A. polyacanthus, Royle (probably), but the specimen is 
very poor. If they came from Kashmir, Nubra and Ladakh, 
respectively it would agree with the known distribution of these 
species, though the arrangement of the labels on the sheet does 
not suggest these localities. There is also a sheet of Thomson’s 
showing three pieces of A. oplites, Benth., in the Calcutta 
herbarium. They were gathered in Nubra on 2nd September, 1848. 
‘A. tenuispinus, Bunge. The types are Jacquemont’s nn. 1543 
and 1584. According to Bunge these came from Kashmir and — 
Kunawar. Both are A. polyacanthus, Royle; n. 1543 came from 
between Kanum and Sugnum in Kunawar and n. 1584 I suspect 
from Lari in Spiti or from Kunawar. Jacquemont calls the plant 
A. microphyllus, and mentions it in his journal (Journ. ii. 259, 
345, 372, 405 and 414 ), for Kunawar and Spiti. 
‘A. scariosus , Benth. ex Bunge, founded on Jacquemont’s 
n, 1143 and sheets of Thomson’ 8, is A. cicerifolius, Royle ex Fisch. 
As Baker l.c. quotes the synonyms fully it is only necessary 
to point out that A. polyacanthus, Baker, is not Royle’s plant. 
A. multiceps, Baker is Wallich’s plant, not Royle’s. A. leptocen- 
trus, Baker, is Bunge’s plant only as regards part of Thomson’s 
sheet from between Hango and Lio in Upper Kunawar. With 
this are mounted two scraps of some other species, possibl, 
A. zanskarensis, Benth., from Kargil, Dras. Winterbottom’s 
specimen from Astor (i.e, Hassora not Hazara) is also not 
A. leptocenirus, Bunge. These specimens have much the 
appearance of a diegslocved form of A. Candolleanus, Royle. 
The species known to occur in the N. W. Himalaya are as 
follows 
A. a or Royle ex Benth. in Royle, le. 199, non 
Baker. A. psilacanthus, Fisch. le. 407 = pl. Jacq. A. tenus- 
spinus, Bunge, le. xi. 44, xv. 70. A. microphyllus, Jacq. 
Journ. ii. 259. 
Kunawar, Ladakh 9-15,000 feet. 
